Writing in a Sunday newspaper, Prince Charles drew a direct link between nanoscience, the groundbreaking study of matter a millionth of a millimetre wide, to a medical catastrophe which led to thousands of children being born with deformities.

He also used the article to highlight his concern at the “self-assembly of natural processes”, reviving suggestions that surfaced last year that he believes a “grey goo” could overrun the Earth.

His intervention prompted nanoscientiststo say he was a danger to progress and had a “primal fear of technology”. They cautioned that the Prince’s involvement could jeopardise the expected benefits from nanotechnology, including cancer-fighting drugs and greater fuel efficiency.

“Why are we listening to Prince Charles? What are his scientific qualifications?” asked Philip Moriarty, a nanoscience specialist from Nottingham University.

Many in the scientific community believe that yesterday’s article in the Independent on Sunday, far from being a one-off, was the opening shot in a new campaign, modelled on the one he waged against genetically modified crops. The timing of yesterday’s intervention was being viewed as a pre-emptive strike before the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering release the results of their independent study on the subject.

The intervention is also likely to upset the Government, which commissioned this study in order to educate the public and prevent scaremongering. Tony Blair has personally backed the scientific research into advancement of nanotechnologies.

Professor Richard Jones, a nanoscientist from Sheffield University, goes further. He said that there was a striking similarity between the Prince’s piece and the recent communiqué of the radical anti-globalisation campaigning group ETC. “Some people might think it odd that it looks like Charles is acting as a front-man for such an overtly political campaigning organisation,” he said.

In the article, the Prince said that the ability of science to operate at the scale of a pinhead is “a triumph of human ingenuity” and that this will undoubtedly have “perceived” benefits to society.

“But how are we going to ensure that proper attention is given to the risks that may also endure?” he asked.

He quoted extensively from the evidence given to the joint study by John Carroll, the recently retired professor of engineering at Cambridge.

He wrote: “Referring to the thalidomide disaster, he says it “would be surprising if nanotechnology did not offer similar upsets unless appropriate care and humility is observed” . . . Those are my sentiments too.”

He also took the opportunity to deny that he had ever used the expression “grey goo” and said that he did not believe that “self-replicating robots, smaller than viruses, will one day multiply uncontrollably and devour our planet. Such beliefs should be left where they belong, in the realms of science fiction.”

However, later in the article, he said that the techniques involved “operate at the same scale as the ‘self-assembly’ of natural processes.”

Professor Stephen Wood, a social scientist from the University of Sheffield, said: “Self-assembly does not seem to me to be that big a step away from the grey goo problem.”

Professor Wood, who recently co-wrote a paper on nanotechnology for the Economic and Social Research Council, said that the Prince needed to be more informed, particularly when comparing GM and nanotechnology.

“That’s not a fair comparison at all. Nanotechnology is no different to copper-smelting. It’s just rearranging atoms,” he added.

Dr Moriarty said: “The thalidomide comparison is definitely most unhelpful.”

IN HIS OWN WORDS

Times Recommends

• Forces chief faces new battle - the economy
• Seven days that shook the world
• Icelanders wake up and smell ... the fish